[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 154 (2008), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 6066-6073]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                                  IRAN

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 18, 2007, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) is 
recognized for 60 minutes.


                             General Leave

  Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
and include extraneous material.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. WATERS. The subject of my Special Order is Iran.
  Madam Speaker, at the time the war in Iraq began in March of 2003, 
who would have thought that we were being led into perhaps the worst 
foreign policy disaster in America's history? Many of us voted against 
the war authorization in the first place. But many more Members wish 
they had voted against it. We now know that this country was led into 
this war with faulty intelligence and a deafening war drum from the 
administration.
  The question that we raise tonight is this: Could the Bush 
administration possibly be planning for a war with Iran? There isn't 
any empirical evidence to prove that the Bush administration is 
planning for war. But there are experts that are indeed worried that 
the same playbook that was used to bring this country into the Iraq war 
is now being used to toward Iran. The administration is pushing suspect 
intelligence. And it has severely increased and sharpened since their 
rhetoric first began toward Iran.
  We come to the floor tonight to resist efforts by this administration 
to paint war with Iran as a necessary next step in our so-called war on 
terror. A vast majority of foreign policy and military experts agree 
that war with Iran would be a colossal error.
  Allow me to spend a few minutes to explain why I feel that U.S. 
strikes against Iran are a real possibility. Let us look at some of the 
signs that we may be headed for war. The increased rhetoric. The 
administration is building the volume of inflammatory rhetoric toward 
Iran in a similar fashion to the run-up to the Iraq war. Strong 
statements about Iran's intervention in Iraq could set the stage for 
U.S. attack on Iranian military or nuclear facility.
  Surrogates in the administration, including the President himself, 
have increasingly stressed a full range of negative Iranian behavior, 
including that Iran is killing U.S. soldiers in Iraq, supplying 
weapons, training and funding to special groups.
  They also say that Iran is interfering with the peace process in the 
Middle East. And they go on to talk about General Petraeus and 
Ambassador Crocker as they argued that Iran is the major future threat 
to stability in Iraq.
  Iran seeks to build nuclear weapons. When this point was dismissed by 
the recent National Intelligence Estimate stating that Iran had long 
since halted their nuclear enrichment, the administration criticized 
the report.
  Allow me to read a short selection of clips from recent press 
clippings that expose the irresponsible rhetoric coming from the Bush 
administration. This headline from the Daily Telegraph on April 7, 
2008: British Fear U.S. Commander is Beating the Drum for Iran Strikes. 
``British officials gave warning yesterday that America's commander in 
Iraq will declare that Iran is waging war against the U.S.-backed 
Baghdad Government. A strong statement from General David Petraeus 
about Iran's intervention in Iraq could set the stage for a U.S. attack 
on Iranian military facilities, according to a Whitehall assessment.''
  Another headline: Petraeus Says Iranian-Backed Groups Are Greatest 
Threat to Iraq. This is in the Bloomberg News April 9, 2008. ``The so-
called `special groups,' which are funded, trained and armed by Iran, 
played a `destructive role' in the recent clashes between extremist 
militias and Iraqi Government forces in Basra and Baghdad, Petraeus 
said. `Iran has fueled the violence in a particularly damaging way,' he 
told the House Armed Services Committee today in Washington, his second 
day of testimony to lawmakers. `Unchecked, the `special groups' pose 
the greatest long-term threat to the viability of a Democratic Iraq.''
  Again, that was the Bloomberg News, April 9, 2008.
  Another headline, the Voice of America, April 2, 2008, Israel to 
Redistribute Gas Masks Amid Fears of War with Iran.
  ``Israel's security Cabinet has decided to redistribute gas masks to 
the entire population amid fears of a nonconventional war with Iran. 
The last distribution was just before the U.S. invasion of Iraq 4 years 
ago.''
  Another headline in the New York Times, April 12, 2008. The headline 
reads, Iran Fighting Proxy War in Iraq, U.S. Envoy Says.
  ``Iran is engaging in a proxy war with the United States in Iraq, 
adopting tactics similar to those it has used to back fighters in 
Lebanon, the United States ambassador to Iraq said Friday. While Bush 
administration officials have long denounced what they have described 
as Iran's meddling in Iraq, Mr. Crocker's language was unusually strong 
from Mr. Bush down, administration officials this week have been 
turning up the volume on Iran.''
  A further sign that the U.S. may be headed for war is Admiral 
Fallon's resignation. In the aftermath of the disastrous invasion of 
Iraq, there has been

[[Page 6067]]

discussion within media and in the military that senior military 
officers should have resigned when they knew the White House to be 
heading to a reckless war in Iraq.
  Some are speculating that the recent retirement of Admiral Fallon is 
a direct result of his steadfast opposition to war with Iran. He even 
made his disagreements with the administration public before his 
retirement.
  In a now-famous profile that Admiral Fallon agreed to do for Esquire 
magazine, he was characterized as the only man standing between war 
with Iran.
  Let me read an excerpt from that article.
  This was Esquire magazine, March 11, 2008. The title is ``The Man 
Between War and Peace.'' The article goes on to say that if in the 
dying light of the Bush administration, we go to war with Iran, it will 
all come down to one man. If we do not go to war with Iran, it will all 
come down to one, that same man. So while Admiral Fallon's boss, 
President George W. Bush, regularly trash-talks his way to world war 
III and his administration casually casts Iranian President Mahmoud 
Ahmadinejad as this century's Hitler, a crown it has awarded once 
before, to deadly effect, it's left to Fallon, and apparently Fallon 
alone, to argue that, as he told al Jazeera last fall, this constant 
drumbeat of conflict is not helpful and not useful.
  Another sign that the U.S. may be thinking about war is the offensive 
against the Mahdi Army. Moqtada al Sadr has promised full-scale attacks 
on America's interests in Iraq in the event of strikes on Iran. As 
commander of the multinational force in Iraq, General David Petraeus 
still presides as the commander of the Iraqi security forces as well. 
Any operation against the Mahdi Army would have been authorized by him. 
What motivation did the United States have in fueling a violent 
confrontation with the powerful militia at a time when al Sadr had 
declared a truce and the progress of the surge was being reported to 
Congress?
  One explanation is that recent operations against al Sadr's militia, 
the Mahdi Army, may have been meant to neutralize possible resistance 
inside of Iraq in the event of a strike on Iran.

                              {time}  2145

  The following five reasons are taken verbatim from an article in U.S. 
News and World Report that was published on March 5th entitled ``Six 
Signs the U.S. May Be Headed For War in Iran.''
  Before I go into the five reasons that I have taken verbatim from 
this article in U.S. News and World Report, I am going to recognize the 
Congresswoman from Oakland, California, Barbara Lee, who is cochair of 
the Progressive Caucus. She is one of the co-founders of the Out of 
Iraq Caucus. She has been consistent in her resistance to this war in 
Iraq.
  She is an organizer. She is a constant speaker on the speaking 
engagement circuit, speaking with groups and organizations all over 
this country who want to hear from Barbara Lee about what is going on 
in Congress.
  The question she is most confronted with is when will this Congress 
end the war and bring our soldiers home? What are you going to do about 
a President who is ignoring the will of the people and ignoring the 
will of Congress in their attempts to resist the continued funding of 
the war? Every weekend, somewhere in this country, Barbara Lee is 
attempting to answer those questions and engage the American citizens 
about what is happening here.
  I yield to Barbara Lee.
  Ms. LEE. Madam Speaker, let me begin by thanking my colleague 
Congresswoman Maxine Waters, the gentlewoman from California, for 
organizing this very important special order tonight. Let me just say 
to you, Congresswoman Waters, your clear voice and your sound judgment 
as the co-founder of the Out of Iraq Caucus has helped guide this 
antiwar movement, not only here in the House of Representatives, but 
throughout the country.
  Your boldness and your vision in organizing those of us who knew that 
this war was wrong from day one in putting together over, what, some 77 
members now of the Out of Iraq Caucus, I have to salute you and thank 
you for that, because we will never go back again. All we can do is go 
forward to try to end this occupation and try to prevent another 
preemptive war against Iran.
  It is very timely that Congresswoman Waters has called us here 
tonight to sound the alarm on Iran. It is truly disturbing to me to 
hear many of the same drumbeats on this administration 's march to war 
with Iran as we saw 5 years ago in the run-up to the war in Iraq. So I 
want to provide just a little bit of history on Iraq to draw out some 
of these parallels, in the hope that they will provide Congress and the 
American people with a clear warning signal.
  Madam Speaker, this discussion is also timely today because today is 
April 15th, and millions of Americans across our country are right now 
racing the clock to beat the tax filing deadline. Lots of them are 
asking, how much do they owe and what is the government doing with 
their money?
  One answer, Madam Speaker, is that in the last 5 years, this 
administration has spent nearly a half trillion dollars on the Iraq war 
and occupation. This Iraq tax, and that is what it is, an Iraq tax, 
comes out to approximately $16,500 for every American family of four. 
Has the tax been worth it? Let's look at what we have gotten in 
exchange.
  More than 4,000 of the Nation's best and bravest have been killed. 
More than 30,000 others have been wounded, many suffering permanent and 
debilitating injuries. Tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians 
have died, and millions have been internally displaced or sought refuge 
in neighboring countries. Meanwhile, the occupation of Iraq has caused 
serious damage to America's international reputation and created a 
generation, mind you, a generation of future enemies incensed by the 
endless occupation of their country by a foreign power.
  Madam Speaker, compounding the folly of this strategic blunder, the 
$500 billion which American taxpayers already have spent on this 
occupation is now undermining our ability to finance the investments 
needed to address the pressing domestic needs of the American people 
and to revive our sagging economy. Given what the Iraq tax has brought 
American families, and this $500 billion is quickly mounting to almost 
$3 trillion very soon, is anyone really surprised that the American 
people are angry and demanding change?
  The saddest aspect of this whole story and this whole episode, Madam 
Speaker, is it did not have to be that way. Along with 125 of my 
colleagues, a substantial majority of House Democrats, I opposed the 
war, like Congresswoman Waters did, from the beginning, and we voted 
against the resolution authorizing the use of military force.
  I offered an amendment Congresswoman Waters supported, we got 72 
votes during that period, to the original use of force resolution to 
prohibit the administration, remember this, Congresswoman Waters, we 
tried, we tried, we did everything we could do to try to keep the 
administration from taking military action until the United Nations 
could complete their inspections and confirm that Saddam Hussein's 
regime indeed possessed weapons of mass destruction which it intended 
to use against us or to give to our sworn enemies.
  Had the Lee amendment been adopted, we would have learned much sooner 
and at far less cost what the whole world knew, that evidentially we 
didn't know, but some of us knew, but the whole world now knows, 
including the American people, that Iraq did not pose an imminent 
threat to the United States, was not involved in the September 11th 
attacks, had no ties to al Qaeda and had no weapons of mass 
destruction.
  The war and occupation has also exacted an awful toll on our military 
force, our structure, our readiness, and the men and women in uniform 
and their families. General Richard Cody, the Army Vice Chief of Staff, 
testified before the Congress that the Army is out of balance. The 
current demand of our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan exceeds the 
substantial supply and limits our ability to provide ready forces for 
other contingencies.

[[Page 6068]]

  Because of this administration's mistake, tens of thousands of 
servicemen and women have been required to undertake lengthy 
deployments into the war zone, two, three, and some even four times. 
This has placed enormous strain on them and their families and 
increased their risk of struggling with mental health issues, including 
when they return home many, many post-traumatic stress issues that we 
have never seen before. Nearly 60,000 veterans of the wars in Iraq and 
Afghanistan have been diagnosed with posttraumatic stress disorder, and 
most experts in the field believe the numbers could be much higher.
  Some may ask, why is it necessary to review this history? Well, as 
the old saying goes, those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. 
The other reason for reviewing this history is because it goes straight 
to the veracity and the credibility of this administration that brought 
us this debacle and which may be maneuvering to reprise its strategic 
and geopolitical incompetence by taking preemptive military action 
against Iran.
  If you listen carefully, you can hear the same distant drumbeats of a 
coming war with Iran. The signs are very familiar. Nearly on a daily 
basis we read or hear these from the administration, and let me just 
repeat a few of these drumbeats that we hear.
  They say Iran is the single greatest threat to the stability in Iraq, 
although when I asked General Petraeus last week if Iran was in Iraq 5 
years ago, he said they weren't really ``kissing cousins.'' I think 
that is what his comment was. No, Iran was not in Iraq 5 years ago.
  Iran is building nuclear weapons.
  Iran is killing American soldiers in Iraq, arming, training and 
funding insurgents and terrorists.
  Iran is interfering with the peace process in the Middle East.
  I am reminded how the administration sent General Colin Powell, do 
you remember that, Congresswoman Waters, the Secretary of State, by far 
the most effective and respective spokesman, before the United Nations 
Security Council to make the case to the world that Iraq posed an 
imminent threat to regional peace and security. The case presented by 
General Powell accomplished its mission, but its factual foundation 
rested on falsehoods, misinformation and speculation masquerading as 
evidence. To this day, General Powell regards his performance that day 
as really a mark on an otherwise distinguished career of public service 
to our Nation.
  General Petraeus is the 2008 version, quite frankly, of General 
Powell. He inspires more confidence than President Bush and is far more 
credible than Vice President Cheney. But so did General Powell inspire 
and bring this credibility to this administration, and he turned out to 
be wrong; terribly wrong.
  Again last week, General Petraeus testified that Iranian-backed so-
called special groups posed the greatest long-term threat to the 
viability of a Democratic Iraq. He testified that it was these groups 
that launched Iranian rockets and mortar rounds at Iraq's seat of 
government two weeks ago, causing loss of innocent life and fear in the 
capital and requiring Iraqi and coalition actions in response.
  This is starting to sound like the groundwork being laid for the need 
to take defensive action against Iran. This is unacceptable. We should 
not be looking for an excuse to attack Iran. Congress should not stand 
for yet another so-called preemptive military strike, and we should 
take action to clearly prohibit any such attempt against Iran.
  As I stated, we have been down this road before. We have learned a 
simple truth from five hard and bitter years in Iraq. No unjust war 
ever produced a just and lasting peace. It has not worked in Iraq. It 
will not work in Iran.
  What is needed is not another rush to unwarranted, unnecessary and 
misguided military action, but rather a strong diplomatic surge for 
peace and reconciliation. And, yes, I do believe that a nuclear-armed 
Iran poses a danger. I believe we need to move forward with 
nonproliferation efforts, including looking at our own arsenal of 
nuclear weapons in our own country. Nuclear weapons should not be an 
option at this point, given the dangers of the world. So we need to 
address nuclear nonproliferation in the context of a strong diplomatic 
initiative.
  One of the most important first steps we should take is to have 
direct, comprehensive and unconditional bilateral talks with Iran. To 
facilitate this goal, it is imperative for the administration to show 
that it is serious in this endeavor by appointing a special envoy. I 
think we need to appoint a special person, an individual who does 
nothing but ensure that we move forward to reduce the tensions in the 
region, and this envoy should receive the necessary support to carry 
out his or her mandate.
  That is why I introduced H.R. 5056, the Iran Diplomatic 
Accountability Act of 2008. Among other things, this bill directs the 
President to appoint a high level envoy empowered to conduct direct, 
unconditional, bilateral negotiations with Iran for the purpose of 
easing tensions and normalizing relations between the United States and 
Iran. No one says this is going to be easy, but we must start 
somewhere.
  The latest National Intelligence Estimate released last week 
representing the consensus view of our 16 intelligence agencies clearly 
indicates that Iran is nowhere close to having nuclear weapons 
capability. The NIE assessment underscores why it is critical for 
Congress to ensure that this administration's saber rattling against 
Iran does not turn into a march to war. We have been down this path 
before.
  Madam Speaker, in conclusion, the last 5 years in Iraq demonstrates 
the folly of rushing off to start a war. We don't need another war in 
Iran. We need to end the war in Iraq and fully fund the redeployment of 
American troops so that they may be reunited with their families in the 
United States. We need to use our funds to support them, protect them, 
and bring them home. And we need to begin to move forward to address 
the real issues with regard to Iran and begin to take the military 
option off of the table, because our President, this country always has 
the military option, and it makes no sense to use this or to talk about 
it if we truly intend to reduce tensions and look for some form of 
global peace and security.
  Thank you, again, Congresswoman Waters for calling us together today.
  Ms. WATERS. I would like to thank the gentlewoman from California for 
her consistent and persistent leadership on this issue of war in Iraq, 
and I thank her for coming to the floor this evening to help sound the 
bell against a possible march to war with Iran.
  We have been joined by another one of our colleagues who too has been 
consistent in his opposition to this war. From the very day that he 
first came to this chamber, he made it clear where he stood on this 
war. He has joined with us on the floor on many other occasions and it 
is a constant part of his agenda wherever he is to remind people that 
we are in a war that makes no sense, where lives are being lost, and 
hopes and dreams are being dashed.
  He brings a special kind of understanding about what is going on 
because of his familiarity with the Arab nations and with Islam, and he 
has done a wonderful job of helping to teach and introduce to the 
Members of this Congress other cultures and helping us to understand 
how they operate, what they are all about, and helping us to gain 
respect for those that sometimes are singled out for war, when, of 
course, problems and issues could be handled with diplomacy.
  I am proud to yield time to Representative Keith Ellison to sound the 
alarm.

                              {time}  2200

  Mr. ELLISON. I would like to thank you, Congressman Waters and 
Congressman Lee. Before I got to Congress I thought both of you just 
were towering heroes of peace. Now that I have been here and had the 
chance to get to know both of you, I am certain that I was right from 
the very first impression I had of you. Thank you for standing up and 
calling this special order tonight.

[[Page 6069]]

  The point I would like to make is simply this. We see in Iran a 
country we have not had any open diplomatic relationships with since 
1979, except for brief moments around IEDs last summer. The meetings 
have not been continued, and, in essence, we have had no real 
diplomatic relationships with Iran in many, many years.
  Many Americans don't remember the day when we did have relationships 
with Iran. Yet, despite all these years of having no diplomatic ties to 
Iran, no open communications, channels of communications, it really has 
not solved any of the problems. Not talking has not helped.
  I want to join with Representative Waters and Representative Lee in 
calling for an open dialogue, unconditional bilateral dialogue. 
Dialogue is not a gift, dialogue is not a present, dialogue is not a 
reward.
  Dialogue is a tool that can help us stabilize the world, bring peace 
to millions and millions of people all over the world. Dialogues should 
not be used as some sort of a gift. It doesn't make sense for any 
nation to say capitulate to our demands, and then we will talk to you. 
The very purpose of negotiation is to say, let's talk, and the first 
agenda item could be serious problems we have with one another.
  But the start is talking, unconditional talking, talking with a clear 
agenda in mind, talking with no illusions about differences. But 
talking, nonetheless, is something that I think we need, and we need it 
now.
  I want to say that our effort to isolate Iran by not talking to Iran, 
reminds me of our effort of trying to isolate Cuba by not talking to 
Cuba. Now everybody in the world does business with Cuba except the 
United States. American farmers wanting to sell grain, Cubans want to 
buy stuff from the U.S., people wanting to see family, those things are 
hampered because we are the only ones in the world maintaining this 
policy of nondialogue. I fear that we could end up in the same way with 
Iran.
  Let me just point out an article in the Times online from March 3, 
2008. The headline is, ``Four kisses, then the band played: the day 
former foes became friends.''
  It starts out describing a meeting between Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and 
Nouri al-Maliki. It goes on to talk about how a young girl dressed in a 
white dress clutched a bouquet of flowers as she waited with a small 
boy in a smart suit to greet President Ahmadinejad of Iran, who began a 
historic visit to Iraq.
  Earlier today, we heard a speaker who I won't name say that, oh, the 
United States needs to get with China and Russia to isolate Iran. China 
and Russia, we can't even get Iraq to isolate Iran.
  We can't even get Iraq, a country we have invaded and essentially 
have taken over, though it does operate under the guise of sovereignty, 
we can't even get them to say don't talk to Iran. They have open 
relationships with Iran and are building them more and stronger every 
day. It doesn't make any sense.
  Now, it's not just Iraq that has a welcome mat for Iran. But let me 
just say that when Americans, Members of Congress go to Iraq, all of us 
know we go into military aircraft that takes evasive maneuvers into 
Baghdad, because we are concerned about our safety.
  This is a fact. So much for isolating Iran from Iraq. Okay, well, 
then, what about another country, Pakistan. We send a lot of money to 
Pakistan. Yet Pakistan announced in a March 5, 2008 article, the Times 
of India, Iran, on Wednesday, said it was ``ready to sign the India-
Pakistan-Iran gas pipeline deal,'' but technical issues between the two 
are hindering the process.
  ``We are ready to sign the agreement as soon as possible,'' Iranian 
Deputy Foreign Minister for Economic Affairs said. ``Everything is okay 
from our side. There are some technical issues between India and 
Pakistan,'' he said.
  ``The India-Pakistan-Iran pipeline, which is dubbed as the 'Peace 
Pipeline,' is stuck over issues such as price and transition fees.''
  So much for isolating Iran from Pakistan and India. All right, so 
Iraq, they are talking to them, Iran, Pakistan and India are talking, 
but, okay, maybe we can still get Russia and China, countries that have 
militaries, countries that have economies, countries that have been 
freestanding and independent for many, many, many, many, many years.
  Okay, what about Afghanistan? Isn't that country essentially a failed 
state which we invaded and kicked out the Taliban and now are trying to 
reconstruct today?
  ``In the electricity substation just outside of Herat, western 
Afghanistan, there's the loud hum of power--Iranian power,'' that's 
right. ``More electricity reaches Herat than the city can use, but the 
industrial park just across the road from the NATO military base is 
putting it to good use.
  ``Small plastic bottles of fizzy orange juice shuffle along the 
conveyor belt to be labeled and packed--the building is noticeably 
Iranian in design and the markings on the machinery show exactly which 
country helped these Afghan businessmen.
  ``The camels grazing outside cautiously cross the fast, straight, 
asphalt road--one of the best roads in Afghanistan stretching 120km to 
the border.
  ``Soon a railway will link Afghanistan to Europe, or so boasts the 
Iranian government.''
  I would just mention, with a quick Google search, Iraq, India, 
Pakistan and, now, Afghanistan are all coalescing economically with 
Iran. We are not talking to Iran. We don't talk to Iran. We don't want 
to try to get into that market of 70 million people. We don't want to 
try to open up diplomatic ties and work on issues.
  We are not trying to solve this nuclear conflict with dialogue, 
discussion and open conversation. We are just trying to isolate them, 
but nothing suggested we are being successful at doing that.
  The fact is maybe isolation of Iran is not the right tactic. Maybe 
the right tactic is to try to talk to them, to try to build a better 
relationship, to try to have cultural exchange, try to have exchange of 
views, different though they may be, with an eye toward a more peaceful 
world, with an eye toward a world in which people can have security and 
in which an eye toward which the world can rest and feel their children 
are safe at night.
  The fact is this saber rattling, I remember that it was about maybe 
16 months ago that I sat in my first meeting that I ever had with the 
President, with, I believe, Representative Lee and Representative 
Waters. I think it was Representative Lee who said, are you, Mr. 
President, planning on hitting Iran? He gave us a sure statement that 
he was not.
  Yet ever since that time, all we have been hearing, time and time 
again is that Iran is the problem.
  I don't know how Iran could be the problem in Iraq without the 
complicity of the Iraqi government. I mean, I need somebody to correct 
me on this point because I just don't get it. How can Iran be an issue 
in Iraq unless Iraq wants them in the country. It just doesn't make any 
other kind of sense to me, and I need somebody to explain that, because 
maybe I have just not been in Congress long enough to get it.
  Let me just say, I want to move aside now, and I want to thank the 
two Members who have been leading the charge, along with Congresswoman 
Woolsey, who is recovering from back surgery. I know if she was feeling 
better she would be right better with you, the triad, the triad for 
peace. I admire you so much.
  Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much, I am so pleased and proud to have 
been joined by my colleagues here this evening to sound the alarm. Let 
me say that again, we are sounding the alarm. We are opening up the 
debate. We are raising the questions. We are challenging this 
administration on the issue of war with Iran.
  We are saying, Mr. President, we have watched, we have listened, and 
we have learned. We are smarter people when we hear talk about war, 
when we hear accusations being made. When we hear a march to war we now 
recognize it for what it is. It is a given that we have this knowledge 
that we have acquired since we have been here since the start of the 
war with Iraq. We do

[[Page 6070]]

not intend to sit idly by without opening up the discussion, without 
making the challenge, without raising the questions.
  As I said, prior to the opening lines of the presentation that was 
just given by Congresswoman Barbara Lee, there were signs of war that 
have been identified, not only by some of the experts that we have been 
talking to, but by those who have been writing and watching what has 
been going on.
  As I mentioned before, there is talk, and there are news articles.
  U.S. News & World Report, published on March 11, title, ``6 Signs the 
U.S. May Be Headed for War in Iran.'' Let me repeat that, U.S. News & 
World Report published on March 11 titled ``6 Signs the U.S. May Be 
Headed for War in Iran.''
  Warships off of Lebanon, with the Army fully engaged in Iraq, much 
the contingency planning for possible military action has fallen to the 
Navy, which has looked at the use of carrier-based war planes and sea 
launch missiles as the weapons to destroy Iran's air defenses and 
nuclear infrastructure.
  ``Two U.S. warships took up positions off Lebanon earlier this month, 
replacing the USS Cole. The deployment was said to signal U.S. concern 
over the political stalemate in Lebanon and the influence of Syria in 
that country. But the United States also would want its warships in the 
eastern Mediterranean in the event of military action against Iran to 
keep Iranian ally Syria in check and to help provide air cover to 
Israel against Iranian missile reprisals. One of the newly deployed 
ships, the USS Ross, is an Aegis guided missile destroyer, a top system 
missile defense against air attacks.''
  This article goes on to talk about ``Vice President Cheney's peace 
trip: Cheney, who is seen as a leading hawk on Iran, is going on what 
is described as a Mid East trip to try to give a boost to stalled 
Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. But he has also scheduled two other 
stops: One, Oman, is a key military and ally and logistics hub for 
military operations in the Persian Gulf. It also faces Iran across the 
narrow, vital Strait of Hormuz, the vulnerable oil transit choke point 
into and out of the Persian Gulf that Iran has threatened to blockade 
in the event of war. Cheney is also going to Saudi Arabia, whose 
support would be sought before any military action given its ability to 
increase oil supplies, if Iran's oil is cut off. Back in March, 2002, 
Cheney made a high-profile Mid East trip to Saudi Arabia and other 
nations that officials said at the time was about diplomacy to Iraq and 
not war, which began a year later.''
  Vice President Cheney has been on that trip, as we pretty well know, 
based on the advanced intelligence revealed by this very, very well-
placed article.
  They go on to talk about the Israeli air strike on Syria.

                              {time}  2215

  Israel's air strike deep in Syria last October was reported to have 
targeted a nuclear-related facility, but details have remained sketchy, 
and some experts have been skeptical that Syria had a covert nuclear 
program.
  An alternative scenario floating in Israel and Lebanon is that the 
real purpose of the strike was to force Syria to switch on the targeted 
electronics for newly received Russian anti-aircraft defenses. The 
location of the strike is seen as on a likely flight path to Iran. That 
is also crossing the friendly Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq. Knowing 
the electronic signatures of the defensive systems is necessary to 
reduce the risk for warplanes heading to targets in Iran.
  They go on to give the other identification markers that should be 
watched and should be vetted.
  Israeli comments. Israeli President Shimon Peres said earlier this 
month that Israel will not consider unilateral action to stop Iran from 
getting a nuclear bomb. In the past, though, Israeli officials have 
quite consistently said that they are prepared to act alone if that 
becomes necessary to ensure that Iran does not cross a nuclear weapons 
threshold. Was Peres speaking for himself, or has President Bush given 
the Israelis an assurance that they won't have to act alone?
  Israel's war with Hezbollah. While this seems a bit old, Israel's 
July 2006 war in Lebanon against Iranian-backed Hezbollah forces was 
seen at the time as a step that Israel would want to take if it 
anticipated a clash with Iran. The radical Shiite group is seen not 
only as a threat on its own, but also as a possible Iranian surrogate 
force in the event of war with Iran. So it was important for Israel to 
push Hezbollah forces back from their positions on Lebanon's border 
with Israel and to do enough damage to Hezbollah's Iranian-supplied 
arsenals to reduce its capabilities. Since then, Hezbollah has been 
able to rearm through a United Nations force that polices a border 
buffer zone in southern Lebanon.
  So as you can see, there is quite a bit of reason to be concerned 
about the administration's saber-rattling towards Iran. There is no way 
to prove their intentions, and I hope we are wrong, but we really can't 
afford to be wrong.
  Another encounter like in January between the U.S. Navy and an 
Iranian speedboat could be used as an excuse for retaliation similar to 
the Gulf of Tonkin incident that began the Vietnam War. The White House 
would simply claim that we were ``provoked'' and were defending 
ourselves.
  I would like to stop at this time and yield time to the gentlelady 
from Houston, Texas, who has been consistent in her work with the Out-
of-Iraq Caucus in an attempt to bring our soldiers home. It is with 
great pleasure that I yield to Congresswoman Jackson-Lee.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the distinguished chairwoman, 
Maxine Waters. I would say I am delighted to be part of the Out-of-Iraq 
Caucus, but that is not the appropriate term. I am delighted, however, 
to join my colleagues, Chairwoman Waters and Congresswoman Barbara Lee 
and the other members who have participated and submitted their 
statement.
  I wanted to join my colleagues because it has been a very long 
journey. I remind Congresswoman Waters in the fall of 2002, we were 
working hard for people to study the resolution being put before them. 
We garnered some 133-plus votes to vote in opposition to the then-Iraq 
resolution.
  I want to speak constitutionally and why this special order and the 
position that Members are taking in opposing any preemptive attack or 
invasion of Iran and standing solidly against the perceived authority 
that the President may have.
  Frankly, if we look at the 2002 resolution, we will find that it can 
be assessed that the President's authority has expired. Saddam Hussein 
is no longer there. Elements of the resolution required that. The 
government has changed. There has been a democratic election, and there 
may be some question as to whether the adherence of the U.N. Security 
Council resolution is still part of that 2002 war resolution. But I 
would argue that there have been so many resolutions in the U.N. we 
could also concede the point that we have protected or adhered to those 
resolutions.
  I truly believe that we are at such a point in history that any 
actions by the President would warrant extreme actions; or I should not 
suggest extreme, I should suggest constitutional actions by this 
Congress. It may warrant raising issues of impeachment. The reason I 
say that is to use the War Powers Act in a way that ignores the 
constitutional privilege and right of this Congress to declare war, I 
believe, is not doing well by the American people.
  We already know the results of a war without end, the Iraq war, that 
is costing $339 million a day, that has already gone past a trillion 
dollars, that has seen 9,500 of our soldiers injured or maimed, 
sometimes injured or maimed for life, to see 4,000-plus die. It is a 
war without end.
  Frankly, the question has to become what is the President's goal and 
intent if he has an idea that Iran is the next target. Has he looked to 
diplomacy and looked to the question of working with China or Russia to 
contain Iran? Has he looked at negotiation with the individuals in Iran 
who really may be interested in some sort of resolution? Is

[[Page 6071]]

he buying into the constant refrain that Iran is providing the weapons 
in Iraq? Is he also looking to the perceived friendship between the 
Iraq government and the Iran government? None of the above.
  What I sense in the administration is a percolating attempt to attack 
Iran, and that percolating attempt based upon the representation of 
nuclear weapons. I don't want Iran to possess the capacity to engage 
and to utilize nuclear weapons, nor am I interested in protecting an 
Iran that has been hostile to the world. I am not interested in 
coddling terrorists. But we can clearly see that the policies in Iraq 
have not deterred the terrorists. They have only grown the terrorists. 
And I would question whether the only way to create peace in the Mid 
East is to again attack another country in the Mid East.
  It is important that we continue to engage for two distinct states, 
the Palestinian and Israel negotiations. I would have hoped that this 
administration would have spent their time following through on the 
road map that the President announced some few years back. I believe 
that we were distracted in Iraq. We were distracted in Iraq from 
Afghanistan and from solving the Palestinian-Israeli question.
  So I rise today to join my colleagues and say not on my watch, 
absolutely not. The statistics of the war in Iraq are devastating. Yes, 
I am prepared today to declare a military success in Iraq. A military 
success means that our soldiers on one and two and three and four 
redeployments have done everything the Commander in Chief has asked 
them to do. Saddam Hussein is gone, there have been democratic 
elections, and U.N. resolutions adhered to. Bring those soldiers home, 
declare a military success, and make the statement to the American 
people that we will never recklessly invade another country.
  Iran is somewhat different from Iraq; and, therefore, may have a 
different story to tell. It may not be the easy route that they might 
have thought Iraq was. But frankly, my view is that we have crossed the 
constitutional bounds and that as I yield back to the distinguished 
chairwoman, I simply believe that we have come to a crisis point that 
this Congress must accept its duty and say to the President that no war 
can be declared without a vote of the United States Congress under the 
Constitution, and I would join with my colleagues, the chairman of the 
Human Right Subcommittee on International Issues of the Foreign Affairs 
Committee, Chairman Delahunt, to suggest that the War Powers Act should 
be amended and should now be that it can only be utilized by a 
President when the Nation is under imminent attack and when there is 
necessity to go forward to protect our citizens. Other than that, that 
War Powers Act should be amended, it should be drawn down, and we 
should stand with the Constitution. No invasion of Iran on my watch, 
and constitutional implications for the President of the United States 
if such attack is proposed.
  I thank the distinguished gentlelady for her leadership in the Out-
of-Iraq Caucus.
  I join my colleagues here tonight to discuss a very important issue: 
the possibility that this Administration may be intent on leading us 
into another war in the Middle East, this time against Iran. I would 
like to thank my colleague Congresswoman Waters for organizing this 
special order on Iran. Even as we remain engaged in a war in Iraq to 
which there is no military solution, this Administration has begun 
beating the drum for war with Iran. I strongly urge my congressional 
colleagues to send a clear message to President Bush that he does not 
currently have authorization to use military force against Iran.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe that using a military strike against Iran 
would be a colossal error. As a nation, we are still paying an 
unacceptably high price for this Administration's ill-advised and ill-
executed invasion of Iraq in March 2003. In 2002, when I voted against 
the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces 
Against Iraq, I did so because I believed that this would be a war 
without end. I believed this resolution would trap us in a conflict 
that, like the Vietnam War, would consume American resources and lives 
without tangible yield. Unfortunately for the people of both this 
country and Iraq, this has proven true.
  As a nation, we have already paid an enormous price for the war in 
Iraq. We have squandered an exponentially increasing amount of money, 
and, worst of all, lost an unacceptably large number of American lives. 
However, the over 4,000 U.S. casualties and the $3,919 per second 
($123.6 billion per year) we are spending in Iraq have bought neither 
peace nor security.
  Mr. Speaker, even as our troops are caught in the midst of 
instability and civil war in Iraq, the President has begun the march to 
war with Iran. We cannot compound the mistakes of the Iraq war with the 
even bigger mistake of opening up a second military conflict in the 
Middle East. And yet, the Administration has begun to set the stage for 
a U.S. attack on Iranian military or nuclear facilities by issuing 
strong statements about Iran's intervention in Iraq, and using 
inflammatory rhetoric against Iran in a similar fashion to the run-up 
to the Iraq war.
  In recent weeks, the Administration has increasingly referred to 
negative behavior of the Iranian regime. Despite contrary findings by 
the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), Bush has increasingly stated 
that Iran is building nuclear weapons. The Administration has also 
cited Iran as a cause of instability in Iraq, and has argued that Iran 
is killing U.S. soldiers and supplying weapons, training, and funding.
  I certainly believe that the current state of affairs in Iran, and 
specifically those issues relating to U.S. sanctions on Iran and the 
security of the region, are extremely important and in desperate need 
of discussion. As a Member of Congress, I find Iran's support of 
terrorist organizations, pursuit of nuclear weapons, and dismal human 
rights record to be extremely worrisome. However, I am also concerned 
by what appears to be movement by this Administration toward yet 
another war in the Gulf region, without having first exhausted 
diplomatic means of addressing any conflicts.
  I have long been an advocate of a free, independent, and democratic 
Iran. I believe in an Iran that holds free elections, follows the rule 
of law, and is home to a vibrant civil society; an Iran that is a 
responsible member of the region and the international community, 
particularly with respect to the proliferation of nuclear weapons. An 
Iran that, unfortunately, we do not see today.
  The only effective way to achieve lasting peace and prosperity in the 
region, along with bringing about reforms in Iran's polity, is to 
assist the Iranian people in their quest to achieve political, social, 
and religious liberty. Every government can be judged with the way in 
which it treats its ethnic and religious minorities, and the current 
Iranian government gets a failing grade for its treatment of its many 
and diverse minorities.
  The controversy surrounding Iran's procurement of nuclear energy is 
cause for great concern; however, the administration's avoidance of any 
and all diplomatic relations with Iran is cause for greater alarm. 
Moreover, the current rhetoric from the Bush Administration regarding 
war with Iran is both counterproductive and highly inflammatory. While 
full diplomatic, political, and economic relations between the U.S. and 
Iran cannot be normalized unless and until enforceable safeguards are 
put in place to prevent the weaponization of Iran's nuclear program, 
these policy objectives should not constitute pre-conditions for any 
diplomatic dialogue.
  Establishing a diplomatic dialogue with the Government of Iran and 
deepening relationships with the Iranian people would help foster 
greater understanding between the people of Iran and the people of the 
United States and would enhance the stability and the security of the 
Persian Gulf region. Doing so would reduce the threat of the 
proliferation or use of nuclear weapons in the region, while advancing 
other U.S. foreign policy objectives in the region. The significance of 
establishing and sustaining diplomatic relations with Iran cannot be 
over-emphasized. Avoidance and military intervention cannot be the 
means through which we resolve this looming crisis.
  Mr. Speaker, Middle East experts have repeatedly stated that a U.S. 
attack on Iran would have disastrous consequences. Among possible 
outcomes, many experts agree, would be an Iranian counter-attack on 
U.S. and Israeli interests in the region or throughout the world. Such 
an attack could also lead to a greater Middle East War, and would 
undoubtedly bring with it a greater loss of life and financial burden.
  Mr. Speaker, now is the time that we need to be looking to ending one 
Middle East conflict, not to beginning another. We need to work to 
rebuild our standing in the international community, not to raise 
further enmity in the Middle East and beyond by attacking another 
nation. I strongly urge my colleagues to speak out against any 
potential military strike in Iran.

[[Page 6072]]


  Ms. WATERS. I thank the gentlelady from Texas, and I am very, very 
appreciative of the fact that the gentlelady is one of the Members of 
Congress that we can always count on to confront the challenges that we 
are confronted with, particularly as it relates to this war, and at 
this time I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE. I, too, want to commend the gentlelady from Texas for 
raising some of the constitutional issues that we have to grapple with 
each and every day.
  I would like to talk briefly about the issue of the preemptive strike 
which is central to this administration's foreign and military policy.
  In essence what the Bush administration has decided is that it is all 
right, and actually it is their standard, to be able to use force not 
necessarily in the face of an imminent threat, but it is all right and 
it is a policy of this administration to be able to use force to 
prevent a future perceived threat. All of this is couched in this 
global war on terror where oftentimes they believe they do have a blank 
check to use force wherever they want to go in the world.
  When you look at what they are trying to do now in Iraq with regard 
to the security agreements, they are trying to negotiate a permanent 
military presence in Iraq without even coming back to Congress to try 
to get the authority to do that. I think minimally, and we have several 
bills that have been introduced into this body, that basically just say 
before the administration decides to use force or take military actions 
or strike Iran, minimally they must come to Congress to seek 
authorization.
  Well, for the life of me, this is the People's House. I cannot figure 
out why we cannot have a resolution as basic as that come to this body 
so we can pass that. I think that should be a minimum standard to 
protect the American people from first of all what could be total 
chaos. Secondly, when you just look at the expenditure of resources and 
what a possible preemptive strike could cost as it relates to Iran in 
terms of treasury, blood, our young men and women and also our 
financial resources. We may just be a few voices in the wilderness 
crying out tonight, but we are crying out very loudly and asking the 
American people to look at these signs because as Congresswoman Waters 
said, we are sounding the alarm so we can stop what appears to be on 
the horizon.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. If the gentlelady would yield, I just came 
back from Iraq, and you are so right. After going and I think getting a 
very wide view of the status of affairs there, clearly as we have 
understood or understand, the government is leaning on the captains of 
our military. Ranks at the captain level are like the government. There 
is no seeming intent or plan that would cease the Maliki government 
from leaning on the United States military, using it as a crutch. So 
there is no evidence that suggests that they don't intend to have 
permanent military bases. In fact, every indication from the 
presentations of the military and others is that they would have it. I 
believe they are in violation of maybe not the rules of this House, but 
certainly the respect of the three branches of government.
  Finally, I would say that I have legislation that declares a military 
success, that lists the criteria under which our soldiers went in, and 
moves it to a diplomatic surge. We should not fool ourselves. The 
intent is a permanent base that allows them to do the preemptive strike 
that you are speaking of against any country in the Mideast, and in 
particular Iran. I believe we have to stop it now, and we have to stop 
it forever, and we have to lean on the Constitution because we have 
seen over the last couple of years the Constitution ignored, and that 
simply cannot stand in this place called America.

                              {time}  2230

  Ms. WATERS. Thank you very much to both Sheila Jackson-Lee and 
Barbara Lee for, again, their constant and consistent struggle working 
in this House against the war.
  Mr. Speaker, and Members, press reports have given us some 
indications of the thrust of current White House directed planning. The 
strike would be against Iranian terrorist facilities, the Revolutionary 
Guard units and/or nuclear production facilities, a limited air strike 
operation with the objective of changing Iranian behavior. Those who 
argue for the strike are saying there will be very few U.S. casualties 
and very few Iranian civilian casualties. Nevertheless, we all know 
that U.S. strikes against Iran would be disastrous.
  Middle East experts generally agree that Iran would respond to a U.S. 
strike by attacking U.S. and Israeli interests throughout the region 
and possibly globally. These strikes would lead to a greater Middle 
East war, including greater loss of life, financial burden, over 
stretch of our military and worse.
  We're sounding the alarm this evening and we are sending a message to 
the President of the United States of America and to the Vice 
President, particularly now to the Vice President, who, when he was 
reminded by an ABC News reporter that the recent polls show that two-
thirds of Americans say the fight in Iraq is not worth it, his 
response, ``and so?''
  Well, Mr. Vice President, our ``and so'' to you tonight is, and so 
the American people do not want us to continue this war in Iraq and to 
air strike in Iran. We're sounding the alarm. And I will yield time to 
the gentleman who just left the Speaker's seat to complete this 
colloquy that we've had here this evening.
  Mr. ELLISON. Madam Speaker, I just want to again thank 
Representatives Waters and Lee and Sheila Jackson Lee.
  I just want to make a few quick points. We're under no illusions. I 
think that by this special order, I don't think anyone intends to 
excuse bellicose, inflammatory remarks that have been made by the 
President of Iran. There's no excusing that. But you don't deal with 
bellicose remarks with a war. You deal with bellicose remarks by 
issuing a statement condemning those statements, but not with a war. 
And I don't think any bellicose statements or inflammatory remarks by 
the President of Iran could ever justify an attack which will result in 
the massive loss of life.
  I also want to say that a strike against Iran, no one can predict 
what the consequences of that will be. Will it excite the Shiia 
community in Pakistan, of which 30 percent of the people are Shiia 
there? What will it do to Afghanistan?
  Again, Iran is providing electricity in Afghanistan in an effective 
way, much, much more than other countries have done. Again, Kabul and 
Kandajar are not electrified 100 percent of the time.
  What will happen in Lebanon? Will that inflame another war such as 
the one in the summer of 2006? That could inflame the region, and no 
one knows whether bombs will start falling from other parts of the 
region.
  This war against Iran, a strike against Iran has no clear outcome. It 
is a very bad idea. And I think that what we must do is pursue 
diplomatic negotiations, and remember that negotiation is not a reward, 
it's not a gift, it's not a present; it's a tool for the security of 
the world.
  Ms. WATERS. Madam Speaker, and Members, I am pleased that we have 
taken time from our schedules to come to the floor tonight to sound the 
alarm. The saber rattling is going on by this administration. The 
remarks that we're hearing day in and day out are more accusatory 
toward Iran. We are made to believe that we are somehow being placed at 
a great threat by Iran.
  And so we know where this is going. We know what this means, and 
we're saying, we must not rule out diplomacy. We must believe that we 
can settle differences by way of diplomacy.
  We know that we've still got work to do on Iraq. We've still got to 
make many Members of this House feel comfortable with the idea that 
they can confront their President, that they can still be very, very 
patriotic as they stand up against war and bringing our soldiers home. 
We know that the work has to be done, but we've got to add to that work 
the fact that we can stop an airstrike on Iran and we can stop the

[[Page 6073]]

notion that somehow we must send more soldiers in.

                          ____________________